Policing the logs: Public Records Law violations shown

Sunday

Mar 11, 2012 at 12:41 AMMar 13, 2012 at 5:52 AM

The law is clear: Police departments must keep and update a daily log of their activities, reported crimes and arrests, and that log must be readily available to the public at no cost and with no questions asked. But a number of municipal police departments and state police barracks across the region failed to comply with that basic requirement this past week during a series of checks carried out by the Telegram & Gazette.

The law is clear: Police departments must keep and update a daily log of their activities, reported crimes and arrests, and that log must be readily available to the public at no cost and with no questions asked.

But a number of municipal police departments and state police barracks across the region failed to comply with that basic requirement this past week during a series of checks carried out by the Telegram & Gazette.

Police officers and civilian dispatchers at a number of area stations asked for the name of the person making the request, demanded to see identification or questioned why the requester wanted to see the police log — all of which is explicitly forbidden by the state Public Records Law.

In at least three especially troubling cases, police officers ran the names of requesters through law enforcement databases to check for warrants and criminal histories simply because the person had asked to see a public record.

“Absolutely, that's intimidating,” said Jonathan M. Albano, a Boston lawyer specializing in matters of public information and member of the New England First Amendment Center's advisory board. “The law does not require you to say why you're asking for a public record, and it doesn't require any kind of identification check.”

Southbridge Police Department officers and supervisors twice broke the law, for example, by telling two requesters, who visited the station on different days, that the police log is not available to the public. Police said a person requesting information would have to show identification and fill out a form giving their name and reason for the request in order to get any information about police activity.

When one of the requesters exercised his legal right not to give his name, a Southbridge officer used his cruiser's license plate scanning equipment to establish the identity of the requester.

In Boylston, a police officer required a requester to hand over his driver's license, which a dispatcher made a photocopy of, before providing the log. The dispatcher then ran the requester's name through the department's internal computer records system.

At the Millbury state police barracks, a trooper also required the requester to pass his driver's license through a slot in the bullet proof glass window. The Telegram later confirmed through state police officials that the trooper ran a warrant check, a Board of Probation check and a license check on the requester.

“It shouldn't have happened,” acknowledged state police Lt. Col. Tim Alben, commander of the agency's Division of Field Services, which oversees all uniformed troopers. “We shouldn't be demanding ID from people who come in and want to gain access to a public record.”

Troopers at the state police barracks in Charlton, Leominster and Holden failed to provide police logs to requesters at different times this past week, wrongly stating that no such information was available to the public.

After hearing about the Telegram's experiences in seeking police logs from state police barracks, Lt. Col. Alben sent out a memorandum to all the uniformed troopers under his command late last week reminding them of the requirements of the law. He said it's rare for a member of the public to turn up at a barracks asking to see the police log and therefore some troopers simply weren't aware of the requirement.

“The long and short of it is we'll have to do a better job,” Lt. Col. Alben said.

The day after he sent out the memo to members of his command, troopers at the barracks in Sturbridge provided a log of police activity to a requester.

Southbridge Police Chief Daniel Charette acknowledged his officers were wrong to ask a requester to show identification and then, when he declined to provide it, to run his license plate number through the Registry of Motor Vehicles database to establish his identity.

Chief Charette said his department is short on resources and personnel, and therefore asks residents to fill out the form, which asks for the requester's name and reason for his or her request, rather than simply make police logs available for anyone to come in and peruse.

However, the statute requiring police departments to keep a daily police log also mandates that they be “available without charge to the public during regular business hours and at all other reasonable times.” Another statute, the state Public Records Law, prohibits public employees from asking why a requester wants a public record or demanding confirmation of the requester's identity.

Boylston Police Chief Anthony G. Sahagian said he was surprised to hear his department's Officer Philip E. Bazydlo had required a requester to hand over a driver's license in order to see the daily log.

“Ultimately, you got the log. As far as the ID goes and all that, I don't know why he would have asked for that,” Chief Sahagian said. “That's not the way it's done. Anybody can walk in off the street and get a copy of the log.”

At a number of area police departments, that's exactly what happened.

Police in Dudley, Gardner, Grafton, Holden, Leicester, Northboro, Oxford, Shrewsbury, Sterling, Sutton and West Boylston all performed well in the review.

A Grafton police dispatcher simply asked a requester what period of time he wanted to see and then printed out the log with no delay or further questions. In Sterling, a dispatcher handed over the log immediately upon request with a “here you go” and “have a nice day.”

Police in Northboro and Shrewsbury keep binders with updated incident and arrest logs in the lobby where interested residents can flip through them any time of day or night without even having to ask. Shrewsbury Police Sgt. Chuck Pratt, the department's public information officer, said putting updated police logs in the station lobby every day was the idea of Chief James Hester. In addition to facilitating the public's access to police information, the arrangement saves time for dispatchers who otherwise would have to print out the log every time some one asks to see it, Sgt. Pratt said.

But the thinking on public access is somewhat different in nearby Millbury, where acting Police Chief Mark Moore said anyone wanting to see the log should call ahead.

“They have to prepare it for you. They don't just have it on hand,” Chief Moore said in an interview.

When a requester stopped by the Millbury Police Station last Tuesday afternoon, the chief happened to be present in the front office along with a dispatcher and a uniformed police officer.

When asked for the log, Officer Nicholas Fortunato grabbed a binder labeled “police log” from a bookshelf, but the dispatcher said, “No, no, no. Names and addresses.” Officer Fortunato then said that he couldn't show the log to the requester because it hadn't been modified yet.

Asked if there was any list of calls and police activity the requester could review at the time, Officer Fortunato said no, and the requester left empty handed.

But Chief Moore later said that the department had not denied access to public information.

“Nobody's denying you the log. They don't have the redacted copy just sitting there ready for you,” he said.

In Northbridge, administrative assistant Linda Skillen came down from the dispatch area and asked the requester if he needed specific information on a particular call. The requester asked to see a public log of police activity.

Ms. Skillen explained that the department doesn't keep a public log, which if true would be a violation of the law. She advised the requester to read a local newspaper where a “sanitized version” of the log appears once a week.

“I was surprised she didn't give it to you. That normally wouldn't happen,” Northbridge Police Chief Walter J. Warchol said later in an interview. “If people come in and say they would like to see log entries we print it out. We have nothing to hide. It is on our website.”

The New England First Amendment Center's Mr. Albano said the kinds of problems accessing public records encountered by the Telegram & Gazette usually come down to a lack of awareness and training on the part of public employees.

“This shows why you need the public records law,” he said. “People in those positions worry about if it's alright or not to give someone this public information. After a while, they start to think of it as their information and that it's their job to protect it.”

First Amendment advocates argue that keeping unfettered public access to public records is essential.

Ken Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, says, “Public records laws are designed to fill the promise of the First Amendment.”

Mr. Paulson, a lawyer and former police reporter, is former editor-in-chief of USA Today.

“In 1791, the American people ratified the First Amendment to the Constitution and especially the freedom of the press clause because they insisted that somebody had to keep an eye on people in power. This came at a time when the press was at its most biased and most hateful. At a time when the press was the most ugly the American people still said it did not matter. We still need people to keep these guys in check,” Mr. Paulson said.

These records are compiled by people on the public payroll using public tax dollars.

“Of course we have a right to them,” he said.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.